United States v. Patrick Evans
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17250
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Patrick Evans was convicted in 2010 in federal court of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana; sentenced to 55 months plus 3 years supervised release.
- Eleven days after the federal sentence, Evans pleaded no contest in Wisconsin to sexual offenses involving a 16‑year‑old; state court imposed five years’ probation with required sex‑offender treatment to follow federal supervised release.
- Evans began federal supervised release in June 2012; U.S. Probation sought to add sex‑offender assessment and treatment to his federal conditions so treatment would occur earlier.
- The district court held a hearing, found the circumstances had changed since original sentencing (because of the new sex‑offense convictions), and ordered sex‑offender treatment as a condition of federal supervised release.
- Evans appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to modify conditions absent a violation and that the sex‑offender condition was unrelated to his federal convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to modify supervised release absent violation | Evans: court lacked authority to modify because he hadn’t violated conditions | Government: §3583(e)(2) and Rule 32.1 allow modification during term regardless of violation | The court affirmed: §3583(e)(2) permits modification without prior violation; district courts have wide discretion |
| Whether sex‑offender treatment condition is reasonably related to §3553(a) factors | Evans: treatment unrelated to firearm/drug convictions; not justified | Government: recent sexual convictions relate to defendant’s history/characteristics and sentencing goals (rehabilitation, public protection) | The court affirmed: treatment reasonably related because sexual offenses were contemporaneous and address rehabilitation/public safety needs |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sines, 303 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 2002) (district courts have wide discretion to impose and modify supervised‑release terms)
- United States v. Ross, 475 F.3d 871 (7th Cir. 2007) (standards for special conditions of supervised release; relation to §3553(a) required)
- United States v. Scott, 270 F.3d 632 (8th Cir. 2001) (vacating sex‑offender condition when sexual offense was remote in time)
- United States v. Smart, 472 F.3d 556 (8th Cir. 2006) (upholding sex‑offender condition where sexual offenses were recent and contemporaneous)
- United States v. T.M., 330 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2003) (conditions need not relate to convicted offense if they satisfy §3553(a); remote incidents insufficient)
- United States v. Carter, 463 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2006) (vacating or upholding sex‑offender conditions depending on recency and relation to defendant’s sexual conduct)
- United States v. Weatherton, 567 F.3d 149 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding sex‑offender conditions where recent allegations provided indicia of reliability)
- United States v. Hahn, 551 F.3d 977 (10th Cir. 2008) (sex‑offender conditions reasonably related to history and need to protect the public where recent sex conviction exists)
Affirmed.